John said... Given how senators like to fawn all over each other, I suspect that in reality, nobody will say anything and he will be confirmed without controversy.

John Henry

There used to be a tacit agreement that officeholders were deemed deserving of a more respectful process, a sort of honor among thieves. But of course the left ended that with John Ashcroft. We'll see if Reps use the new standard or meekly accept the double standard that leftists can be as viscious and venal as they can while claiming Republicans must practice high-minded decorum at all times.

"Liveshot" Kerry wll be swept into office by those spineless faggy "right-wingers" who signed in Timmy "Tax Cheat" Geithner to run the tax department of our country and Eric "My People" Holder, who let violent voter intimidating thugs go free.

The Department of State is one of our more fucked up bureaucracies--they shined Hillary on for four years, and my take is they will shine lurch on for four years--Actually having lurch as SOS will be quite humorous. Sec States don't do anything any more. Lurch fits right in.

Look, Asshole, if you're going to substitute bitches for our proper made up names, will you please have the son-of-a-bitching decency to capitalize? That's Bitches, Dumbass, enjoy the decline, Bitches.

I for one, think Lurch will make a good SoS, in the age of instant diplomacy, it is after all a do nothing job. Hillary proved that. What passes for Diplomacy in the 21st century is whatever POTUS says on the phone. Lurch will do fine making toasts to dictators around the world. Most will like dealing with Lurch better... he is after all a man. Not my bias, theirs.

Now SECDEF, I worry about that one.

PS: Roger J, you obviously haven't been in DC in 20 years, my list for bottom feeding corrupt/disfunctional Agencies include:

I for one, think Lurch will make a good SoS, in the age of instant diplomacy, it is after all a do nothing job. Hillary proved that. What passes for Diplomacy in the 21st century is whatever POTUS says on the phone. Lurch will do fine making toasts to dictators around the world. Most will like dealing with Lurch better... he is after all a man. Not my bias, theirs.

Now SECDEF, I worry about that one.

PS: Roger J, you obviously haven't been in DC in 20 years, my list for bottom feeding corrupt/disfunctional Agencies include:

Fail up is the trend in America. Vote present enough in the IL state senate and you too could be president. Betray your fellow soldiers and lie at the Winter Soldier farce and you too could be Sec of State. I suggest you wear a helmet Lurch because I hear your predecessor suffered a nasty concussion to avoid being depants-suited[how's that for a horrible visual image] by testifying to Congress.

1. Obama is pretty committed to a liberal internationalist vision of problems in the world (American power must be subsumed to international courts and law, and people like Muslims must be included in that order through carrots and sticks). He's idealistic in the one-worlder, justice will prevail, we're all one people with transnational problems kind of way, so let's all solve them.

This is pretty far Left for many Americans, myself included, and heavy on human rights. As a result, we may not be successfully handling the rise of Islamism and more robustly projecting the values and ideals through policy that I'd more like to see, including freedom of speech, liberty, trade, and maintaining relationships with our allies. It's not a friendly world, but we can find allies.

2. There is a school of thought and practical experience built upon this idealism, that operates pragmatically with people like Samantha Power, and various others who I won't name. If they could build a Eurocracy over here, they probably would.

They do know some stuff about stuff, however, because they've had to deal with lots of stuff and have acquired practical knowledge through experience.

3. There were a bunch of people working for Clinton, and a big internal war took place when Obama won with divided loyalties and lots of fallout. Clinton might be a little stronger on defense, and her and Bill don't like playing second fiddle, but she has.

Much like Biden, Obama is plugging in the old Democratic guard (Clinton, now Kerry) but partly they're going along for the sake of the party and for political power and for their own careers and opportunity which is perfectly reasonable as these things go...

...yet, some old Schools are having to make the trek toward social justice, race, Obama's ideas and where he's leading the party and country and aren't entirely comfortable with such idealism.

Conservative and Republicans, of course, feel almost totally unrepresented, and don't like this direction at all.

Obama felt most comfortable with Susan Rice, because she would have had his ear, much more than Clinton.

I sincerely hope someone, anyone, asks Senator Kerry to produce the hat which a Special Forces team supposedly gave him for taking them into Cambodia on or about Christmas 1968 (IIRC), an event so positively disproven that it is a running joke to this day in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web column.

Perhaps I should explain. Kerry's quote is "I Have the Hat to This Day. I Have the Hat." Which was his only defense of his outright lie about his Cambodia excursion, which again, did not happen and could not have happened.

Taranto puts that quote in his column as a category header for stories of obvious non-proofs by assertion.

“They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

Sen. Psycho-Liar Kerry

The mental disorder Mythomania is a requirement for anyone President Obama wants close to him. Birds of a feather.

Phx...with all due respect, I suggest to you that it isn't just "extremists" who object to Kerry's appointment to anything. He was a traitor, but then again so were Cora Weiss and Tom Hayden, and they skated as well. Even Bill punk-boy Ayers admits he's "guilty as hell, free as a bird."

It is a sad development when pronounced liars are rewarded and promoted in our society. It has become an addiction, a habit, from what I saw in my time in the military and as a "fed."

Extremism in defense of a right-wing freak show however, that's a whole 'nother cannoli.

I'm not defending John Kerry here, or attacking all conservatives. I'm making note that the moderate Republicans have a real serious PR problem, and the Dems have a gift in the extremists who just love to spread their point of view!

As friendly as I am to moderate conservatives, I'm even more friendly to moderate liberals, so I'm all for the extremists getting their voice out.

John Kerry - statesman, leader, and former outspoken liar and hearsay hustler and critic of the atrocities of the U.S.

I understand you point overall, and tend to agree, but I just had to fix that last line for ya.

Lt. John Kerry never witness any infantry actions. He purportedly did shoot a wounded enemy in the back. He merely aggregated mythical unsubstantiated war stories he gathered, from men he never served with, during his "investigation" in Ann Arbor and Detroit.

While it would have been nice to see Kerry win the Presidency in 2004, this will have to do. Plus, if he had won, Obama probably wouldn't be President now and both the demographic wave in favor of the Democrats and the general hilarity we've seen from the Republicans over the past several years may not have taken place either. So all's well that ends well.

And the more vicious righ-wingers become, the more it will look like.... 2004, when Kerry lost the elections.

You know I disagree, but you want to take the challenge. Interesting. Who will win the hearts and minds of the GOP? If I'm right it won't matter. The internecine warfare will make a shambles of the party in any case.

Hey, that's just my take though. You guys do your best to push the moderates out. Maybe it will pay off.

Drill and Lars Porsena--yes praise gaia I have been out of the beltway since 1986 and I genuinely appreciate the updates on the worst agencies that most people have never known. researching those agencies will give me something to do for the next couple of months.

I should say that I am thankful that we no longer have to be concerned about the ass sizes of our SOS. Madeline Albright was probably 3 Pinkwaters and Hillary was two pinkwaters (an old NPR joke on car talk). At least John feffin Kerry has a reasonably sized ass.

Franklin said...Why does anybody want the French-looking, former junior senator from Massachusetts, who by the way served in Vietnam, to be SecState?

===============1.Because Republicans gave Neocons there shot and they gave us two wars we lost that lasted longer than Vietnam and cost us 2 trillion. The nation is sick of that - and it is one of the reasons behind the Romney loss. (and something that hurt McCain). Give credit to the Democrats, they did not run as the Pro-Endless Asian Land Wars Party after Vietnam. Republicans are stuck on stupid with their continuing Paeons to more splendid overseas military engagements shedding our blood and what's left of our treasure to help Noble Freedom Lovers or "Our Special Friend" - Israel.. 2. Because it isn't DOD, where Kerry truly would be unacceptable to most Veterans and active duty military. But nibbling brie cheese and sipping wine with French diplomats and soothing ruffled Brazilian feathers - yeah they could see Kerry doing that.3. Because he has done about as well as a Democrat could running or as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He will pass Senate confirmation with ease. 4. Because Obama won, and won convincingly - but lost his preferred nominee Susan Rice because she went out and lied to the public to help re-elect The One Black Messiah..That meant Kerry was the next choice in line for the job.

somefeller said...While it would have been nice to see Kerry win the Presidency in 2004, this will have to do. Plus, if he had won, Obama probably wouldn't be President now and both the demographic wave in favor of the Democrats and the general hilarity we've seen from the Republicans over the past several years may not have taken place either.=================1. I actually agree with you that had Kerry been elected in 2004 and replaced the idiot Bush - in hindsight, the nation would have been better off. It would have repudiated the Neocons, the Norquistians, and we would have been able to focus on bigger things than a few thousand "Terrahist Evildoers" and running America like our only purpose was to make the rich richer while dismantling US industries and sending them to China. 2. But Kerry dishonored the uniform. It was just a step too far to ask moderates and even many Democrats who served to accept him as Commander in Chief. 3. The nation would have been better off because the meltdown largely caused by Fannie-Freddie and the progressive Jewish financiers on Wall Street - stalwart Democrats all - would have happened on Kerry's watch and been properly seen as a Democrat thing..4. With the nation in complete economic mess in 2008, the nation would have rolled the dice for someone they were a little queasy about to replace the Democrats that gave us the Meltdown. It wouldn't have been Obama, or McCain and the Neocons discredited in 2004 had Kerry won then. We would have rolled the dice for Romney.

And been much better off.Pity.If only Kerry had not disgraced the uniform! his election in 2004 would have led to better events.

phx said... Every time a right-winger says something like this two or three moderates or independents move closer to the Dems. Obama couldn't ask for better friends.

Personally I'm touched by phx's concerns over the possibility rightist blog commmenter statements might push moderates out of the party. But I wonder why he's not concerned with outrageous statements by leftists such as President Obama ssserting President Bush refused to allow federal funds to Katrina victims because they were predominantly black?

Is it because he knows such patently ridiculous ideas statements are endemic to the Democratic Party culture and thus do not represent new information to voters? Or is it because of his intrinsic standard of acceptability varies by party?

I'm not sure really, but the humor of watching someone rant about blog commenters while voting for a president who says worse is perfect for Christmas weekend.

This is a dodge. phx continues to pretend random rightist blog comments are abhorrent but the leftist President saying worse merits no comment at all. Alinsky's 13th rule was "always attack the enemy, never accept the focus on yourself".

I remain curious what the military will make of Obama as C-in-C, who has already betrayed them repeatedly (Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi) and Kerry as SoS, who betrayed them with his slanders in the Winter Soldier Investigation.

At least Kerry won't be SecDef, apparently, but I've got to believe that military morale has got to be at an all-time low since Vietnam.

Clyde said...well, at least SoS Lurch will probably do less damage than he would have done had he been elected President Lurch. Probably.

============I consider Kerry an upgrade from a Susan Rice at the helm.

Or fucking Hillary, who really hasn't been an effective SoS, and not just her Benghazi mess...lots of things she has bungled.

But Hillary has a squad of kneepad wearing adorers in the liberal and progressive Jewish media 2nd only to the Black Messiah. That feel guilty she had to be discarded as the First Woman President!! - because to the media - nothing would show how good a group they were than pimping for their annointed Black Messiah. The First Black President!! - who would redeem their guilty white consciences. Hence their buildup of Hillary (once again) as the Presumptive Next President (to atone for their 2008 betrayal of her).

When he is not being a pompous asshole, half the time, Kerry actually has been an effective advocate for rational foreign policy objectives. He was right to recognize Vietnam and restore normal relations - ignoring the POWs are still alive!! moron brigade. He correctly warned against the Neocons and Bush's idiotic "Terrahist-Centric" foreign policy. And that good foreign relations have more than a military component.

John said:"Or perhaps how a serving Naval officer could go to Paris and meet with the folks (NVN) we were at war with."Many military folk of my father's generation regard Kerry as a traitor for this act. My father was still a Marine Reserve officer, and adamantly opposed to the Vietnam war, when he first told me this.